men with upper body strength are less likely to support wealth redistribution and men without...

I agree with what you say most of the time, but this couldn't be further from the truth. IMHO.

Paul;
I don't have an explanation for everything. If you read my posts, you will see an unusual (for here) amount of "This is just an opinion" and "I could be wrong" and "I could easily change my mind"...that kind of thing.

And, if I don't really have a fact, or well reasoned explanation...I tend to just let it go, or just make fun of the other posters. You know my posts well enough.

Scientists tend to be liberal for many reasons. Sometimes they are working on projects that require grants, more likely given by liberals. But not all of them. There are plenty of scientists working for companies with conservative bents.

And that's why I didn't include teachers, who tend to vote liberal. I included college professors, because they are about as well educated as you can be, and advanced education requires intelligence.

But scientists are not really more liberal. They are more pro-science.

I'm not evangelizing liberals. I am evangelizing intelligence and science.
And there are nonsensical liberal views as well. I classify views as "nonsensical" when they are in opposition to the evidence. And evidence isn't liberal or conservative.

I was pointing out that scientists, are generally more intelligent than average, and are trending more away from conservative views. The reasons, I won't explain, because that isn't a profitable discussion....and I don't have a real knowledge of the reasons, just an observation...which isn't all that popular.

See? I don't have an answer for everything.

OK, Genius level IQ....to be honest, I did a quick Google search for "Genius Political Affiliations", and couldn't find an unbiased source. But I only searched a couple of pages.
And (not going to be a popular statement) unlike most others, I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong. I've changed my mind several times, here, based on a better argument than what I had.


Paul; you said "and one could easily show similar weaknesses in the general liberal thought process.".
I'm not trying to show strength in the liberal thought process. It's the scientific thought process I'm interested in.
And the overwhelming majority of scientists...no matter who they work for, are (based on every credible source I found in a quick search) more liberal in their views. Although I guessed that this was going to be the case, I didn't know....and that's why I did the search.

Anyway, I take your opinion seriously. Which isn't usually the case. Sorry if I sounded a little prickly.

Maybe a quick search for "political affiliation by IQ " would bring up something interesting.

but it isn't a profitable search. Nobody is going to say "Hey, the dummies are on my side. Maybe I should change what I think". That, my friend, isn't going to happen.


Added a little later; I like to think of myself as completely objective. You could call it my life's ambition. I really make an effort to see every side of an issue (when it's opinion based, and not fact based). And I think I'm one of the brighter people here. And then I just reread my post. And I'm defending a position....just like everyone. I guess I'm not quite the "Objective scientifically minded guy" I thought I was. Anyway, I'll leave my post, for the sake of continuity....but I really shouldn't read these threads that are obviously going to start arguments. Live and learn.

Thanks, yes I just realised that and amended the post, I got confused after comments about gym people needing a nanny.

That quote right there, placed neatly under the OP, could have nailed this thread at the start.

Well said.

Patrick; A pretty fair idea, I think. I get the whole "dominant male thing". I even understand the idea that the weak feel entitled. I'm also a dominant male, and don't like it either.

You said "they are strong, mostly because of their attitude's of self reliance, dominance and perseverance." I agree completely, and share that exact view.

But, as a dominant male, there is another way to look at it. One way to prove dominance is to help the weak. We are stronger, not to ignore the weak...but to use our strength to help them up. This is simply a viewpoint.

I don't donate to charity for humans, because I have a strong view that we should be self reliant. And for the people that make no effort, except excuses...I have no pity for them.

But, you show me someone who will try...and maybe get half way as far as they could...I'll feel a strong impulse to help them get the other 50% of the way.

To me, part of being strong, is defending the weak. I'm not kidding. And sometimes, helping those with less aptitude is part of it. Again, it's just a personal point of view.

Liberals tend to want that urge to be institutionalized as part of your government. And Conservatives want this "helping" to be more elective. Both views have merit, again..in my opinion.

(This is going to be sexist, sorry) But the Man of the house...the strongest one in the family....takes care of the smaller and weaker members. I just see that idea covering more ground.

It was just an idea. I hope you give it some thought.

Added after I read this again;
I think I just decided where I fall. On this particular matter, I think more along the lines of "I want to help the less fortunate. But I want it to be my choice, not the government's". I still see the need for a bottom that people can't fall below. I don't want anyone to starve. But I would rather my helping the less fortunate be my choice, and not law".
People may get help...but they aren't owed help. Again, just a viewpoint.


Man, Dennis...sometimes you just bring up incredibly brilliant points. I think I'll have to mull this over. Maybe it has something to do with "what we all agree is to our mutual benefit" VS "When a group wants us to adapt to their view". I don't know. Maybe it's that we call it morality, and what that means to us.

But....This is a real problem, and it may not be an easy answer. I'm open to ideas.
Added a few minutes later; I think TL's answer was pretty good, but I'm still going to give it more thought.

Dan; I think it would be more accurate to say "Typical Liberal. You want all of the pleasure...and you want everyone else to share the pain". Eh?

If you won't fend for yourself, you should not be allowed to continue.

Joe Mobley

Now you're taking liberties with me.

Touche - I was wondering if anyone would pick up on my over-generalizing, in my rant about over-generalizing... It's almost as if I did it on purpose. - But this cuservativ aint as enteligent as yu libruls...

It is a stereotype - but it's not one that I just invented.

I guess you didn't see the last platform meeting:


Though it IS true that there were two items, and neither was about GOD, let's go over a little bit, ok....

1. Christians, and catholics would recognize it from a historic standpoint.
2. Jewish people would recognize it from a historic and refuge standpoint.
3. And MOSLEMS???????

Well, it IS true that the Bible does NOT actually say that god gave JEWS the land. It says god gave abrahams descendants the land. Both the koran and the torah say that the jews and the arabs are abrahams descendants. So TECHNICALLY, the arabs should recognize it also.

So it seems like there is a good cross section that don't want to toe the line. They had to check it THREE times! To determine a 2/3rds majority shouldn't be that hard, and I think it was more 50/50.

ALSO, who keeps asking that signs be removed from private property that almost nobody sees?

HECK, I think that democrat "intelligence test" had questions about belief in god! And you guys tend to ridicule such belief. I'm toying with publicizing a parody on it.

Steve

Don; To be fair, your post is literally nothing but liberal bashing also.

Is this graphic supposed to be showing the U.S. national debt?

I also see at the bottom of the graphic something about federal spending. No wonder so many people get the growth of the national debt mixed up with actual gov spending.

If it's supposed to be a graphic about the national debt - it's as wrong as a $3 bill.


In 1963 the national debt was 306 billion not 1.9 trillion as shown on the graphic.

In 1980 the national debt was 908 million not 2.3 trillion as shown on the graphic.

in 2000 the national debt was 5.6 trillion not 7.5 trillion as shown on the graphic.

In 2007 the national debt was $9,008 trillion not 9.9 trillion as shown on the graphic.

BTW...

The national debt went from 5.6 trillion in 2000 to 9 trillion in 2007.

I guess we shouldn't have had those two tax cuts while also fighting two wars.

The only fairly accurate number is the final number - approaching 17 trillion.

Heritage also claims to get the numbers from Historical Tables | The White House table 7.1, but I looked it up and the numbers simply do not match the graphic.

Historical Tables | The White House Table 7.1

Here's another source that also matches up with the numbers at whitehouse.gov.

National Debt by Year

Why the serious disparity in the numbers?

I could get into the motivations etc. of the authors of the bad data, but I'll pass.

I just wanted to point out the weird numbers on the graphic.

Sure they do but would they nominate him today with his history of compromise which includes raising taxes several times, spending enormous amounts of money and passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill? I just can't see it happening.

Nope. Completely serious. Paul alluded to the same thing but didn't use the word radical. I mean, look at the GOP party. There's practically a civil war going between the radicals and the more reasonable members of the party. This is common knowledge and very evident to anyone who can look at the situation objectively and not get emotional about it.

A male politician's pole goes up and down depending on how many votes he gets. That's why they call them "Pole Numbers".

There, I said it.

Dennis, True. The question is, I think, would he make it through the primary process, which isn't controlled by the moderates in either major party.

I don't know the answer to that one, but it's hardly a sure thing.


Paul